UPDATE 3.50PM:A Judea woman is removing her objection to the classification of her dog as 'menacing' ahead of a hearing with Tauranga City Council.

Council's animal services team leader Brent Lincoln told Sunlive this afternoon Lisa Ross will no longer appeal the classification of her Siberian Husky, named Max, as a menacing dog pursuant to Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Lisa Ross' Judea address where Max, her Siberian Husky, allegedly bit the complainant on the leg last December. Photo: Bruce Barnard.

Earlier:

A Judea woman is preparing to take on Tauranga City Council and her ex-partner after her dog was labelled 'menacing” following an attack that left puncture marks and bruising.

Before a TCC hearings panel, Lisa Ross will object to the classification.

The appeal was set down for Thursday but has since been rescheduled for March 23.

In a council report, Tauranga City Council animal services team leader Brent Lincoln states the attack happened at Ross' Bell Street address in Judea on December 4, 2014, at about 11.30am.

Max – an eight-year-old de-sexed white male Siberian Husky – was home alone when the female complainant, Ross's ex-partner, entered the property through an unlocked gate on the drive leading to the front door.

Asleep at the time, Max then attacked the woman biting her on the right calf leaving left three shallow puncture marks and a scratch on her leg with a large circular bruise. As a result of the bite, the woman fell, injuring her back.

She sought medical attention, with the report stating 'posteriro leg – dog bite. Superficial tear to skin, no deep involvement, wound cleaned and dressed” and later laid a complaint with council.

Council investigated the matter and classified the dog as menacing – the provisions of which require the dog to be muzzled when at large or in a public place or private way, says Brent.

Where an incident of aggression is reported to council and has been investigated, council may classify a dog as menacing where they consider the dog may pose a threat to any person because of any observed or reported behaviour of the dog.

But Lisa, in an emailed response to a dog control officer, disagrees with the classification, saying the attack never took place as the dog hasn't previously shown any signs of aggression.

Lisa states the dog has never bitten anyone before and believes her ex-partner made a false claim to cause stress and further harassment.

She goes on to say she had trespassed the woman from the property and padlocked the gates to minimise a reoccurrence.

As part of her defence, she says there was a back entrance to the property which the woman could have used which would have avoided the area where the dog was kept.

The ex-partner says she was not aware of an alternative entrance and also didn't see a warning sign about the dog despite visiting Ross' address on a number of occasions.

Council reports the following factors may have led to the attack; the dog was home alone and asleep when the victim arrived. As she left the dog bit her and it appears the dog was awoken with the victim standing right beside it and reacted.